Home Men's Health Women's Health Family Health Health Professionals Health Topics Wellness Shop Contact Us

Related Topics Helpful Products

Don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.
Read Don's blog!

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Can American Consumers Trust The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)? I Would NOT Recommend It!

Sunday August 22, 2004

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) claims to be "a consumer education consortium" that is independent, nonprofit and tax-exempt. No question that it is nonprofit and tax-exempt; it's independence and primary devotion to the general public interest is open to challenge. Since 1978, ASCH has been in the business of defending chemical, pharmaceutical and the other big business interests that provide most if not all of the organization's funding. When assessing the reports and testimony of ACSH experts, it is wise to know the meaning of the phrase "caveat emptor!" On second thought, make that not only buyer but, more broadly, consumer beware. 

ACSH does, of course, do some good work defending critical thinking and skepticism about a wide variety of scare tactics and junk science by hysterical groups urging policies that do not have sound scientific bases. The organization has also played a helpful role in the battle against smoking. It does indeed, as claimed, contribute some "reason and balance to debates about public health issues." However, in my view, ACSH is as or even less "fair and balanced" as FOX News, which of course means that they are wildly biased and as balanced as Dick Cheney. ACSH is first and foremost a big business interest group, devoted to varied industries, not the public--and you would be wise to remember that when you read their reports or observe their employeess testifying on TV, before the Congress and so on. 

The latest example of ACSH's "fair and balanced" role in seeking to shape American health policy is seen in an August 13, 2004 article at the organization's website written by long-time executive director Elizabeth Whelan entitled "Do You Really Know What Is in Those Drugs You Are Buying From "Canada"? This piece gives credence to the dubious assertion by the acting FDA director that there is a "possibility" that terrorists might contaminate pharmaceuticals that Americans buy from Canada! Well, of course there is a possibility that religious nutcase terrorists might do anything, since little is beneath the decency of these virgin-obsessed lunatics. Yet, why would they focus on drugs shipped to America from Canada? Since such an act would benefit US pharmaceutical giants, is ACSH suggesting that terrorists are looking after the best interests of drug companies? After all, US drug companies, and the big business-oriented Bush Administration officials in the FDA who first floated the idea of a possible terror link with imported drugs, would love to see an end to low-cost competition from Canadian drugs.  

As with most of ACSH's work, high-powered industry reps can marshal a reasonable defense of the industries they exist to defend. In the scare about terrorists and Canadian drugs, Dr. Whelan notes that "many American companies are limiting the supplies they send to Canada" at a time of higher demand. The implication is that those devious "crazy canucks" might be tempted to turn to evil countries around the world to sell them bogus drugs they can then foist upon Americans. While admitting there is no data on contaminated or fake drugs from Canada causing any harm to Americans, the article states that Internet purchases are risky and, well, you know, maybe Osama bin Laden or some of those guys MIGHT enter the fake drug business. To further advance doubt, Whelan gives an example from a GlaxoSmithKline ad that shows how fraud can ensue when drugs are ordered from spammers. Didn't we already suspect that? Anything from spammers is dubious and likely to be a waste of money. Not content with a screed that seeks to protect the drug company position, Whelan even adds a gratuitous slam against the Democratic presidential candidate (who is not likely to be so friendly to the ACHS special interests as the Bush Administration has shown itself to be). Whalen writes, "Instead of clamoring for more freedom to import drugs from "Canada," advocates (including presidential candidate John Kerry and many House and Senate members on both sides of the aisle) should be devising legislation and regulations that will protect Americans from drug tampering and counterfeiting."

Visit the ACHS site and browse the topics. You decide how objective, fair and balanced this organization really is. Then visit another site, PR Watch.com in order to read a critique of ACSH in a story entitled "Impropaganda Review: A Rogues Gallery of Industry Front Groups and Anti-Environmental Think Tanks."

When you do that, I don't think you'll want to take anything ACHS has to offer without a great many grains of salt. 

Look on the bright side, and be well.

Domain: mental
Subdomain: factual knowledge

Search other reports in the Don Ardell report archive.

	Custom Search

Read about our
Featured Products

my shopping cart